DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _397_ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING : 7.9.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 14.6.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Saswati Panda, B.E College Quarter No.D-218, Post b Garden, Shib. Howrah-3.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Hiland Park Metro Polis Mall, Highland Park Shop No. G08 Gr. Floor, Chakgaria, Kolkata-75.
2. Jalan and Sons, 32, Ezra Street (6th floor, room no.655), Kolkata – 700 001.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that complainant purchased five articles on 8.3.2014 from the shopping mall (O.P-1) of O.P-2 on payment of total consideration price of Rs.36.500/- with condition of free warranty services for five years. These items are ; 1) Bed B 120 4x7 (HDL), 2) Kitchen Cabinet 002A, 3) Centre Table A54(B), 4) Lock , 5) Mattress (78x48) . But the articles of Item nos. 1 and 2 got completely damaged by fungus within two months of her purchase. Repeated demands for a solution yielded no result; O.P turned a deaf year to such demand. Therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum with a prayer for return of the consideration price and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
One Sudipta Ghosh, one of the employees of O.P-1, has filed written statement herein. He pleads that five items were sold to the complainant on 8.3.2014 as per order dated 6.3.2014. But except these, he knows nothing.
O.P-2 is the owner of the shopping mall. He has filed written statement ,wherein it is contended by him that he sold five items on 8.3.2014 to the complainant as per order dated 6.3.2014 for a total consideration price of Rs.36,500/- . According to him, as the Government has banned falling of trees, the O.P-2 in his bid to develop an alternative of wooden furniture, imported furniture from other countries which look like wooden furniture and which are sold at one third price of wooden furniture. This imported furniture are made of high dust fiber (HDF) and have an appearance as same as wooden ones. Those furniture except one were also fitted free of cost in the native house of the complainant at Contai , Purba Mednapore on 13.3.2014. Thereafter one day, all on a sudden, a letter was received by him on 5.11.2014 from the complainant and thereby the complainant demanded refund of money for supplying damaged furniture. This is , according to the version of the O.P, an attempt at squeezing money for unlawful gain on the part of the complainant by taking refund of money and compensation within five years period of warranty service. There is no deficiency in service on his part and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both parties have led their evidences and the same are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 &2 :-
Admittedly the complainant purchased five items from the shopping mall of O.P-2. Full consideration has also been paid by the complainant to the O.P. It also goes undisputed that the O.P took steps for fitting those furniture (except one) at the native house of the complainant at Contai in Purba Medinipore. It is the version of the complainant that the two furniture i.e the bed and kitchen cabinet went completely damaged within two months of their delivery. This version of the complainant appears to be not correct.
In the reply of the complainant to question no.5 of the O.P, it has been stated by the complainant that there is defect in the furniture, but the furniture is not in damaged condition. It is further stated by the complainant in her reply to question no.11 of the O.P that the furniture is in same condition as those were at the time of delivery. By the aforesaid version of the complainant it stands established that the said two furniture of the complainant had developed some defects only but they are not completely damaged. That furniture is under five years warranty coverage and it is not disputed by the O.P. As the defect of the furniture has arisen within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled to get those defects remedied free of cost.
It is the case of the complainant that he appraised the O.P of the said defect by a letter which was received by the O.P on 5.11.2014. But she did not get any response from the O.P.s. The O.P-2 admits that he received the said letter ,but he could not give any reply to the complainant. Inability on the part of the O.Ps to give reply to the complainant in respect of the condition of the furniture supplied by the O.P to the complainant seems to be nothing but deficiency in service.
Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds. ‘
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
The O.Ps , particularly O.P-2is directed to send a competent technician to the Contai House of the complainant and to remove the defect of those two furniture as alleged by the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the complainant will be entitled to get refund of the price of those two furniture along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the O.P-2 .
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
